User Profile: tmarends

tmarends

Member Since: September 03, 2010

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • [3] May 12, 2016 at 10:52am

    In the US, words and images CAN be refused… this has been litigated in courts over and over again… what you CANNOT do is refuse the basic service, in this case, a cake.

    Responses (1) +
  • [17] May 4, 2016 at 12:03pm

    Hopefully this means we will no longer have your blather to read on the Blaze….

    In reply to the contribution Goodbye, Republican Party. And Good Riddance.

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] April 25, 2016 at 2:32pm

    For WHAT reason? If you are going to start something with “For this reason” you better have an answer to what the “reason” was… do you know?

    Responses (2) +
  • [1] April 25, 2016 at 1:12pm

    The problem is most “christians” only believe in Saved by Faith when it comes to sins they themselves commit. Whether homosexuality is actually a sin can be debated, but, following their logic, since it’s a “sin” they don’t commit, they can condemn it as something so inherently evil that it doesn’t fall under Saved by Faith, because those evil homosexuals have turned their backs on God and can never be called true believers. It’s hypocrisy at its worse, as nobody can know the heart of another, and what their relationship with God is truly.

  • [1] April 18, 2016 at 5:50pm

    What about Loving v Virginia?? Should the US Supreme Court not have gotten involved in that case either? After all, the state was just setting rules to whom one can marry….

  • [-1] April 8, 2016 at 2:55pm

    Once again, Matt shows his ignorance. I seriously doubt he knows any gay or transgender people, let alone any who live in Southern states. There are already laws on the books to prevent men from entering and using a woman’s restroom… but a transgender woman is NOT a man… and a transgender man is NOT a woman. These are not people who “cross dress”, as Matt suggests. These are not drag queens. Transvestite and Transgender are completely different things…. but, like usual, Matt doesn’t take the time to actually study the issue before he writes about it.

    Responses (1) +
  • [4] April 6, 2016 at 4:47pm

    1 Sam 18:3 “Y’honatan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as he did himself.” (Complete Jewish Bible) — the phrase “made a covenant with” is indication of a marriage covenant, and Jonathan is pledging himself to David, body and soul.

    Responses (2) +
  • [-1] March 31, 2016 at 2:44pm

    He is a disciple of the vehemently anti-gay “Dr” Michael Brown. He has refused to discuss these issues with people who disagree because the words are not his own, he is just parroting Brown. This puppet has strings.

    Responses (1) +
  • [37] March 28, 2016 at 4:09pm

    Oh, come on Matt… at least let’s be honest about this bill:

    1) Clergy ALREADY are allowed to refuse to marry ANY couple who do not meet their faith requirements. You cannot force a Baptist preacher from performing a Jewish wedding ceremony. Catholic priests routinely refuse to marry a Catholic to a non-Catholic.

    2) Churches, like the clergy, CAN and DO refuse to rent their property to host marriage ceremonies who do not meet their faith requirements.

    3) Churches, and religious institutions CAN and DO have faith requirements for employment.

    An Orthodox Jew cannot FORCE the Little Sisters of Hoboken to hire him to teach at their school.

    SO nothing in this bill was being added to what is currently available for Clergy and Religious Institutions… what this bill DID do was expand WHO could claim to be a “religious organization”, which is any and everyone who “claims” to hold a “sincere religious objection” for any reason.

    Responses (12) +
  • [3] February 25, 2016 at 12:26pm

    @1whoisright — You obviously know nothing about this case… this particular lesbian couple had used this bakery before… had bought a wedding cake from this bakery before… enjoyed both the cake and the service they got from this bakery before… All you “why don’t they just go some place else?” people — when you get good service from a business, aren’t you inclined to return to that business for future service? Aren’t you inclined to tell your friends about how wonderful the goods and service was? This is exactly what the lesbian couple was doing… rewarding this bakery with repeat service.

  • [4] February 1, 2016 at 6:38pm

    In the US, time and again, the courts have ruled that WORDS and IMAGES one finds offensive MAY be refused, but the basic service MAY NOT. In other words, if you bake and sell cakes in a public space (a storefront, not working out of your home) you cannot refuse to sell any cake you normally make to anyone who wants it. What you CAN refuse is adding WORDS or IMAGES you find offensive, including “Support Gay Marriage” or “God hates ****”.

  • [-2] December 31, 2015 at 5:24pm

    The lesbian couple was not asking for anything that the Kleins did not advertise that they sold. This isn’t a private transaction between two people… this is a business that sells goods. The business cannot refuse to sell something that they normally sell simply because of the buyers race, gender, eye color… or sexual orientation. That is the law in Oregon.

  • [-4] December 31, 2015 at 5:20pm

    @Robbo_Ronnin The lesbian couple had already arranged to have a wedding cake made by the Klein’s… this was done at a Wedding Bazaar in the area that Melissa Klein was working at a booth for her business in. Melissa Klein had already taken the order to make the cake. It was when the couple went to the store to finalize the deal that Aaron Klein turned them away for being a lesbian couple. IF you sell wedding cakes… IF you advertise that you sell wedding cakes… AND IF you participate in a Wedding Bazaar to promote your selling of wedding cakes… sounds to me like the Kleins were actively seeking people who wanted to spend a little extra for a wedding cake.

    As for your WBC example…. in court case after court case… it has been ruled the WORDS or IMAGES can be refused, but the actual service cannot. I can’t refuse to sell you the cake, but I can refuse to put those words on it.

  • [-6] December 31, 2015 at 12:11pm

    How is this “Involuntary servitude”? The Klein’s sought out a business license so they could sell baked goods, including cakes, to the public. The granting of the license (which they sought after) came with stipulations on how the business must be run. This is true of EVERY business out there. Go ahead, check your own business license… it will stipulate which laws are applicable to the running of your business. These would include non-discrimination laws. IF sexual orientation is a protected class in the non-discrimination laws of the jurisdiction, as they are is this case, then you provide your service or risk losing your license.

    Responses (3) +
  • [-2] December 31, 2015 at 12:01pm

    How is selling someone a cake, a cake you advertise that you sell on a regular basis, “participating” in the ceremony where the cake is being served? If they sell a cake for someone’s bar mitzvah, are they “participating” in the event? If they sell a cake celebrating someone’s divorce, are they “participating” in the divorce?

    Responses (4) +
  • [-15] December 31, 2015 at 11:50am

    Actually, this has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment, as the couple gave up that right when they filed for a business license, and agreed to all the State and Local laws in running that business. A business license is nothing more than a contract with the government to run your business, and like any other contract, the terms set in it are binding.

    Responses (7) +
  • December 22, 2015 at 4:25pm

    Disney cheapened out on the musical score? Written, once again, by the legendary John Williams… maintaining musical themes through 7 films now with the same composer??

  • [-1] December 15, 2015 at 5:16pm

    I cannot, and will not, vote for Cruz. If he gets the nomination, I’m voting 3rd party.

    Responses (3) +
  • [11] September 16, 2015 at 1:28pm

    Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992) — “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

    M.L.B. v. S.L.J. (1996) — “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”

    Lawrence v. Texas (2003) — “Our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”

    Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) — “No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. [The challengers] ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right,” and “The limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples may long have seemed natural and just, but its inconsistency with the central meaning of the fundamental right to marry is now manifest.”

  • [12] September 16, 2015 at 1:21pm

    Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur (1974) — “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

    Moore v. City of East Cleveland (1977) — “When the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”

    Carey v. Population Service International (1977) — “It is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”

    Zablocki v. Redhail (1978) — “The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

    Turner v. Safley (1987) — “The decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression of emotional support and public commitment.”

123 To page: Go